<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I have been thinking of responding again to this. I realise that I
have as of yet not attended any meeting. However, as an ethnographic
researcher interested in the notion of 'freedom' I think what I have
to say might have some relevance. <br>
<br>
As an outsider, the definition of freedom that has been given by
Bob, I think, is in itself restrictive, as I think Sebastian
suggested in his nice metaphor of religious freedom. To limit what
can be talked about within the Linux User Group, to me, as an
outsider, seems to imitate similar practices as Windows and Apple
etc., employ to defend their market share: it is, essentially, the
defining of a distinct territory, and an excluding of anything which
is not authorised to be within that space. This is pure strategic
practice in the business world, and for me, again as still an
outsider, it does not make me want to come to meetings any more than
I would if there was some compensation for a broader definition of
software freedom. <br>
<br>
By instead distinguishing neat boundaries and defining everything
that is concealed within the Linux territory as 'Linux and Free
software' only, it limits the extent to which I may want and be able
to enter. The majority of computer users- those potential newcomers
who somehow may one day become Linux users - are Windows based, so
naturally there is an interest in what these behemoths are doing;
even if that interest is still restricted to the impact of UEFI lock
on the ability to install Linux systems (which afterall effects new
and well seasoned Linux users alike).<br>
<br>
It does not make me feel any more welcome. Instead it creates the
impression that Linux users are like those mythical creatures that
are caricatured by the responses I sometimes get, from Windows and
Apple users, when I declare I am a user of Linux: the territory is
an isolated space, like an island, where the local, quite
reclusively, attempt to defend themselves from more powerful nation
states. If Linux was going to bring in more new comers (though I
still dont really understand this incessant desire to educate,
evangelize and colonise new spaces), then I believe its boundaries
should be more permeable and aware to its historical and
institutional relations, for these are the sources of new
opportunity and potency. <br>
<br>
I realise I have no real legitimacy adding my commentary (because
I'm not an authorised member of the territory, yet), but I am one of
these potential newcomers to meetings and the group so thought those
wanting to delineate boundaries yet somehow seduce others might be
slightly interested. <br>
<br>
No offence intended: I think more significantly this is a discussion
that is being had regarding the nature of freedom itself, and
definitions of freedom, ultimately, should be alive to other even
contrasting visions of something that is really important in our
lives. <br>
<br>
As I said, I see this discussion as much more important than just
talking about Linux or Windows or whatever. I think it is a central
topic that affects us all, and is software freedom- in practice. I
therefore think it is really sad that Bob feels that he has to leave
and would suggest that the nature of software freedom and its
definition would be a brilliant topic for a talk.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/09/12 16:23, Neil Bothwick wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120905162316.31ebca15@hactar.digimed.co.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:31:00 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As promised, below is a history of LivLUG.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Thanks for this Bob.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 18th of August 2012, the LUG held an official Saturday meeting
around its stall at OggCamp 2012. At this meeting, Bob announced that
he would be stepping down as a volunteer for the LUG and no longer
attending meetings. This was followed by an email to the mailing list
in which Bob stated his reasoning: he was stepping down in protest
against the LUG's disregard for issues of software freedom.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I take issue with this though. The LUG does not disregard software
freedom, as evidenced by the number of people attending talks by Same
Tuke and Michael Dorrington. The LUG does not have a formal position on
software freedom, but that is not the same thing as disregarding it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In the
humble opinion of the author, this represents the end of the third era
of Liverpool LUG.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I disagree with that too. The previous two eras ended because those doing
the bulk of the organisation stopped doing so for whatever reasons they
had. By announcing and explaining your leaving, and giving time for a
transition of responsibilities, you haver ensured that there is no reason
for the group to flounder as it has in the past. Thank you for that.
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Liverpool mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Liverpool@mailman.lug.org.uk">Liverpool@mailman.lug.org.uk</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool">https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<i><a href="http://www.dhartley.net">dhartley.net</a></i></div>
</body>
</html>